In early June 2025, the United States issued a sweeping new travel ban restricting entry from twelve countries—including seven African nations (Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan)—alongside partial restrictions on an additional three African countries (Burundi, Sierra Leone, and Togo). This measure, justified by “national security” concerns and alleged issues with visa overstays and identity reliability, revived criticisms reminiscent of Trump-era immigration policies.
The African Union Commission immediately condemned the move, acknowledging the U.S.’s right to protect its borders, but urging that such measures be “balanced, evidence-based, and reflective of the long-standing partnership between the United States and Africa.” It warned that indiscriminate restrictions risk damaging key ties in education, trade, cultural exchange, and diplomacy built over decades.
AU officials pointedly called for constructive engagement instead of unilateral exclusion, stressing that cooperation—not isolation—is the path to effective security and regional stability. They offered to facilitate dialogue and promote greater transparency on both sides.
Regional leaders echoed the AU’s concern. Nigeria’s Foreign Minister, and ECOWAS chair, Yussuf Tuggar, described the bans as de facto trade barriers—highlighting how restrictions on African passports hinder efforts to expand cooperation in mineral exports and energy partnerships.
Critics worldwide condemned the ban as discriminatory, arguing it disproportionately targets countries with predominantly Black and Muslim populations, lacks credible causal connection to terrorism, and could backfire diplomatically. International human rights groups including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the UN refugee agency called for immediate reversal, describing the order as legally flawed and damaging to refugee protections.
Some African governments responded directly. Chad, for example, suspended issuance of U.S. visas in reprisal, creating a diplomatic standoff. While the U.S. indicated existing visas would generally remain valid, entry decisions were left to border officials, fueling anxiety among diaspora communities.
The AU’s firm stance signals growing frustration with U.S. immigration policies that appear to sideline multilateral consultation. As an institution tasked with defending continent-wide interests and cohesion, the AU has sought to redefine cooperation norms—urging that security measures respect mutual interests, and that policy be rooted in shared values and evidence. Whether Washington heeds this call or deepens the diplomatic rift now depends on its response to calls for reconsideration and engagement.
